Malabu oil deal: Adoke denies corruption allegation

Malabu oil deal: Adoke denies corruption allegation

- Mr. Mohammed Bello Adoke has denied the corruption allegation levelled against him by the EFCC

- The former minister of justice insisted that he was doing the job given to him by the former president

- He claimed top politicians were responsible for his prosecution

Mr. Mohammed Bello Adoke has revealed that he was following directives from former president Goodluck Jonathan in the infamous Malabu oil deal and denied allegation of corruption.

The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) had filed charges against the former minister of justice and attorney general of the federation and a former petroleum minister, Dan Etete

Malabu oil deal: Adoke denies corruption allegation
Malabu oil deal: Adoke denies corruption allegation

Legit.ng had reported recently that the anti-graft agency was planning to commence the prosecution of those indicted in the scandal.

READ ALSO: EFCC files charges against Adoke, others over Malabu $1.1 billion scandal

The current report says the EFCC filed a nine-count charge at the Federal High Court, Abuja on Tuesday, December 20, 2016.

The Nation reports that Adoke who has been out of the country denied the allegation explaining that he got approvals from Jonathan to broker the settlement and execute the OPL 245 Settlement Agreement.

He said: “My attention has been drawn to the charges filed by the EFCC against me and other named individuals and companies in respect of OPL 245 Settlement Agreement involving Malabu Oil & Gas Limited and Shell Nigeria Ultra Deep Limited.

“The charge of aiding the commission of money laundering offences preferred against me has finally confirmed the orchestrated plans to bring me to public disrepute in order to satisfy the whims and caprices of some powerful interests on revenge mission.

“I wish to reiterate that I acted within the actual and ostensible authority of the office I occupied to broker a settlement between Malabu Oil & Gas Limited and Shell Nigeria Ultra Deep Limited in order to ward off the over $2billion liability in damages for breach of contract which the country would have been exposed to in the likely event of the success of Shell Nigeria Ultra Deep Limited’s claim before the International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID).

“The Terms of Settlement ensured that the interests of the Federal Government of Nigeria, Malabu Oil & Gas Limited and Shell Nigeria Ultra Deep Limited were duly acknowledged and provided for in the Settlement Agreement.

“The Federal Government of Nigeria was entitled to the Signature bonus which was duly paid; Malabu Oil & Gas Limited surrendered its title to OPL 245 for a consideration and Shell Nigeria Ultra Deep Limited was re-allocated OPL 245 which it had previously substantially de-risked in consideration for withdrawing their over US$ 2billion claim for breach of contract against the Federal Government of Nigeria.”

“Since the Parties aforementioned, faithfully discharged their respective obligations under the Settlement Agreement, one cannot comprehend how the Office of the Attorney-General of the Federation which brokered the Settlement was expected to renege from the agreement by denying Malabu Oil & Gas Limited the benefits associated with the relinquishing of their title to OPL 245 already warehoused in a joint FGN/Shell Escrow account, or to prevent the subsequent re-allocation of the relinquished OPL 245 to Shell Nigeria Ultra Deep Limited when the company had already furnished consideration for it to the Federal Government of Nigeria.

READ ALSO: Malabu oil deal goes dirty, top CAC official killed over $1.092b

“I am of the respectful view that it should be clear to any person dispassionately reviewing the transaction to confirm that I had no personal interest in the transaction; I did not take any benefit from it, I had requisite approvals from the President and Commander in Chief of the Federal Republic of Nigeria to broker the settlement and execute the OPL 245 Settlement Agreement.

“I am therefore unable to rationalise the charge of aiding the commission of money laundering offences preferred against me by the EFCC. But be that as it may, I hope to at the appropriate time make myself available to defend the charges for what whatever its worth.”

Source: Legit.ng

Online view pixel